D&D 5E Action Econ 101

[Uchawi]

I am not sure which is more complex.

1. Always having an action available, but only certain abilities work.
2. Under certain circumstances an action is available, but only certain abilities work.

I would vote for line item 1 as being easier to digest or being more streamlined and to the point.

 

[Sadrik]

EDIT: I thought about that last bit a little more. It doesn't matter if the designers original intent was to do one thing, but then they decided to do another. There was a massive playtest in which they received feedback on their original ideas. If that led them to include some form of action system, then so be it. Let's discuss that system as it is, I hate discussions about what designers said a year ago. They lead to nowhere... and are boring besides.

I think this is a good and valid point.

No, each round you can move and take an action, and possibly a second action as a bonus, if you have an ability (or spell) which allows it.

Granted, there are some characters who, after a certain level or having selected a particular option, will almost always have that bonus action available. Monk's Martial Arts. Rogue's Cunning Action. Any character that is two-weapon fighting.

Where the simplicity comes in is you don't have a huge range of options to parse when you're using that bonus action, unlike the 4E minor and swift actions. For TWF or Martial Arts, you get an extra attack. That's it. Generally there's no reason not to do it, so no time spent wavering to decide. A rogue has a few more options, but there will usually be one that's a more obvious choice for the give situation in a round. I just took out this orc so I can Dash to the next one. Is there a place to Hide? Do I want to Dodge before the dragon spews fire? Even bonus action spells will be a short list, a subset of what the character has prepared/known, and have an obvious use for a given situation. Spells, of course, also require an expenditure of resources, which is another limit on their use as bonus actions.

So, still not nearly as complex as 4E minor/swift actions, which could be part of any number of powers the class has, as well as all those other things like drinking a potion, opening a door, etc. There were so many options, players felt they must have something they could spend their minor action on, often slowing down play to figure out what that was.

Now, there's no searching through all your abilities to find the absolute best use your bonus action. No "use it or lose" anxiety. There's either a fairly obvious option, or, like KM mentions for the Champion fighter with the Defense fighting style, none at all. I'd call that much simpler.

TL;DR - the complexity isn't just about the number of actions you can take in a round; it's also about the number of options you have with those actions.

Good points, though the "use it or lose it" does exist in 5e for bonus actions. Creating a smaller array of bonus actions that you can do each round can make the game faster at the table. The two weapon fighting rogue/monk might disagree with that assessment though. Champion fighter's can be built with bonus actions too. I think I would have preferred the other way but it is not a deal breaker by far. Add a new class and fill it up. Remove the class and you have fewer options that take advantage of the bonus action class.

I am not sure which is more complex.

1. Always having an action available, but only certain abilities work.
2. Under certain circumstances an action is available, but only certain abilities work.

I would vote for line item 1 as being easier to digest or being more streamlined and to the point.

I think you can split hairs here. Without a doubt though you wind up with a lot more actions that are bonus actions when you have the existence of the bonus action. That almost goes without saying. Prior to 3e splats these types of actions were either part of another action (touch spells) or they were a specific text kind of thing like haste.

So argue the minor/swift/bonus action what is the benefit of having them over addressing the of action under another guise?

 

[Ruzak]

One simplification in 5e is the lack of a "trade down" option, which greatly reduces possibilities.

 

[skotothalamos]

So, still not nearly as complex as 4E minor/swift actions, which could be part of any number of powers the class has, as well as all those other things like drinking a potion, opening a door, etc. There were so many options, players felt they must have something they could spend their minor action on, often slowing down play to figure out what that was.

I've often said that 4e combats run at the speed of the Minor action. Everybody knows where they want to go and what they want to hit. Then they think their turn is done, but the DM has to ask if they're done because an Action Point or Minor Action might come flying out and the table doesn't know if the active player is quiet because they're waiting for the next turn or because they're thinking about what to do with that Minor Action. When the DM asks, they go, "oh yeah, a Minor Action. hmm... let me just page through my 17 power cards here... does that magic item use a Minor? hum... I, uh, does anyone need a heal, or a +1 to hit? hey! the Birds will be just as Angry in a second; do you need a heal? oh, okay, never mind then, I, uh, get out a Healing Potion for next turn in case I need it."

With Bonus Actions mostly being triggered by something else (and yes, I know, some class builds tap into this resource in other ways), it seems like it's more commonly going to be, "Oh, and after that, I have one bonus action I can choose to activate. I activate it and kick him again."

 

[MoutonRustique]

I am not sure which is more complex.

1. Always having an action available, but only certain abilities work.
2. Under certain circumstances an action is available, but only certain abilities work.

I would vote for line item 1 as being easier to digest or being more streamlined and to the point.

For computers, you are quite correct.

For humans...

I've often said that 4e combats run at the speed of the Minor action. Everybody knows where they want to go and what they want to hit. Then they think their turn is done, but the DM has to ask if they're done because an Action Point or Minor Action might come flying out and the table doesn't know if the active player is quiet because they're waiting for the next turn or because they're thinking about what to do with that Minor Action. When the DM asks, they go, "oh yeah, a Minor Action. hmm... let me just page through my 17 power cards here... does that magic item use a Minor? hum... I, uh, does anyone need a heal, or a +1 to hit? hey! the Birds will be just as Angry in a second; do you need a heal? oh, okay, never mind then, I, uh, get out a Healing Potion for next turn in case I need it."

With Bonus Actions mostly being triggered by something else (and yes, I know, some class builds tap into this resource in other ways), it seems like it's more commonly going to be, "Oh, and after that, I have one bonus action I can choose to activate. I activate it and kick him again."

This has also been my experience.

While, and this is no secret, I LOVE 4e, 4e fails in presenting itself in an approachable manner to many. One of these hiccups is the minor action; it's something that can make players feel they "forgot something" or "aren't playing as well as they could". This often has the consequence of dragging down play.

A change to "here's an action that is /extra/ but you can only one of these /extras/ per round" will often be much easier for people who don't have deep system mastery, tend to hesitate, or any other trait, to use in a time-effective manner.

 

[drjones]

With Bonus Actions mostly being triggered by something else (and yes, I know, some class builds tap into this resource in other ways), it seems like it's more commonly going to be, "Oh, and after that, I have one bonus action I can choose to activate. I activate it and kick him again."

I agree, my experience in 4e was that minor actions for some players were a time sink.

I don't know if the new system will be an amazing revolution of joy or anything but I am glad they made the attempt and so far in our low level campaign even those who have bonuses have been taking their turns quickly.

It helps that not everyone has one, or at least not everyone has several to chose from. Our newer players have gravitated towards simple fighters and they never need to think about this stuff now. The tactical folks are going to gravitate to wizards and thieves with more moving parts. So far so good.

 

[darkrose50]

I will also disagree. You do get a bonus action every round. There is no may not have it at any moment that is any different than 4e or 3e later splats for that matter. Minor actions were the same way, you may not have been able to use a minor action on any given turn too. You still got it every round and had the potential of using it just as you do with bonus actions. Same concept new word. If they had actually used bonus actions far less in the rules I might agree with you. However, they are used quite a lot. They are just another action type to potentially fill up and maximize on each of your turns.

As to what the action is called, "bonus action" is not quite right language-wise for me. I think of bonus as something that does not happen every round, it is a bonus. This is not a bonus in that sense. It happens every round. So something like haste grants a bonus action. That feels right to me language-wise. Action Surge grants a bonus action etc. So these are language-wise much more like closet cases rather than something that occurs every round.

If there was an ability that mentioned (a) the ability to tie shoes, and (b) the ability to breath, then I could only assume that when I tie my shoes I can breath, and that the breathing was somehow special.

 

[Sadrik]

If there was an ability that mentioned (a) the ability to tie shoes, and (b) the ability to breath, then I could only assume that when I tie my shoes I can breath, and that the breathing was somehow special.

Are you saying:
1. tying shoes is related to breathing
2. breathing and tying are unrelated activities

It all matters how you define it, if you have during each turn:
the ability to move
a standard action
a bonus action
a reaction
and technically you can be under a non-action effect

You can essentially do 4+ things in a round.
So if you defined breathing as a non-action effect then you could breathe while doing everything else. I don't think that is what you meant though. If you had a spell that allowed you to use a bonus action to breathe. You also wanted to tie your shoes as a standard action. You are saying (I think) why can I not do that. My response is if you want breathing to be an action and an optional thing, then, you have several other ways to accomplish it. You can say, it takes your standard action to breathe, so now you will have to tie your shoes on the next round. Or you can say, it takes your reaction to breathe, so now you will be unable to make an attack of opportunity. Alternatively you can say breathing is not that important, you can just breathe, and it takes no action to do it.

Note bonus actions are easily defined without using bonus actions. I have done this in my house rules. Mostly they become standard actions that incorporate the other thing with it, make it a standard action, or in some rare cases you use the reaction to cover it.

The result is that speed of play increases, also, more subjectively those who are maximizers do not feel like they are losing out, because they missed a bonus action or picked the wrong bonus action. For sufficers, it is just one less thing they have to worry about, to make sure they and others think they are playing the game correct.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Does anyone remember the 1st edition (or was it 2E?) spell called Leomund's Lamentable Belaborment?

 

[the Jester]

Again I think it is a great example touch attack spells had they been developed in this era they would have been a bonus action with a duration until discharged on hand or something. Instead we get an action where the attack is part of the action to cast the spell. I reference searing smite and other newer spells as an example to draw contrast.

Two architectural methodologies, one from the past and one current one.

Not exactly. Things like the smite spells are for half-casters, which seem to have a specific 'style' built into them. This thread is fascinating.